The United States of weakness

Red lines that may or may not be real, retaliatory strikes that may or may not be hours from launch, congressional debates that may or may not be necessary for the president to do what he wants—whatever that happens to be this hour.

Barack Obama’s unsteady handling of the Syria crisis has been an avert-your-gaze moment in the history of the modern presidency — highlighting his unsettled views and unattractive options in a way that has caused his enemies to cackle and supporters to cringe.

A fair appraisal of losers — lost influence and lost face — in the Syria debacle so far would include the following:

*Political parties

The diminishment of the parties has been underway for years, fueled by the rise of outside groups and politicians who don’t depend on their parties for money and influence. This reality is the main reason Washington has been paralyzed in recent years — neither House Speaker John Boehner nor Obama has any confidence they could bring their own parties along on a deal over the budget, entitlements or other domestic issues.

But the very real possibility that these leaders can’t summon enough followers to produce a majority to authorize force in Syria - particularly in response to something as repugnant as the alleged use of chemical weapons - puts the reality of that weakness in a stark new light.

When George W. Bush asked the Hill to authorize the war in Iraq, only six Republicans in all of Congress voted against his request. On Syria, Obama lost two Democrats – Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Tom Udall of New Mexico – in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee alone (in addition, Ed Markey of Massachusetts voted present.)

It’s a stark illustration of how far party discipline has decayed that a measure supported by Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid faces such uncertain prospects for passage. Indeed, party leaders have almost emphasized their lack of leverage in pressing for passage of the White House-backed resolution.

“It’s not a question of whipping. It’s a question of discussing,” Pelosi said last week. After Boehner endorsed the Syria resolution, his spokesman blasted out a statement declaring flatly: “The Speaker expects the White House to provide answers on members’ questions and take the lead on any whipping effort.”

In other words: good luck with all that, Mr. President.

*The mass media

Many millions of Americans will tune into Obama’s speech Tuesday night. Millions more will see it covered in news reports the following day.

Countless others will spend Tuesday evening catching up with the Kardashians or watching the news they really care about, on ESPN or E! News.

The reality for Obama – and his future successors – is that Americans no longer congregate around a small number of outlets for their news and entertainment. A presidential speech that cuts into all the broadcast networks and cable news will reach a big slice of the public, but it won’t command universal interest or attention from the American people.

Historically, presidents have relied heavily on their power to make everyone stop and pay attention. That power has waned and Obama plainly knows it: he has only addressed the nation twice so far from the Oval Office. By comparison, Ronald Reagan gave 34 Oval Office addresses in his presidency and George H. W. Bush gave 12 in his single term, according to presidential historian Martha Kumar.

In his political campaigns, Obama has tried to counteract the fracturing of the media landscape by speaking in unconventional venues for a president – “The Tonight Show” or Men’s Health magazine. For moving mass opinion on a serious matter in a short period of time, that approach has its limits.

“The president in some ways can be overexposed and the value of any one presidential communication is diminished,” said Tevi Troy, the former George W. Bush adviser and author of “What Jefferson Read, Ike Watched and Obama tweeted.” Back in the age of FDR’s fireside chats, Troy said, Roosevelt only addressed the nation in that fashion a few times a year: “He actually thought that Churchill spoke too much and lost potency.”

Obama faces a potentially public display of this media schizophrenia Tuesday with the prospect that his speech making the case for punishing Syria could take place simultaneously with coverage of Russia’s efforts to broker a diplomatic end game - efforts the president acknowledged Monday might lead to him to call the whole thing off.